applied, the difference was less than £2,600 or less than 0.2% of the total value of changes.
The reasons
The adjudicator had given sufficient reasons for his decision and had not been asked to declare the value of each item or sub-item. The fact that the adjudicator answered the defendant’s request for further explanation and workings did not mean his original reasons were inadequate. The reasons given were intelligible, and the defendant was unable to demonstrate that they had suffered substantial prejudice. The decision would be enforced.
Natural justice – reliance on unsolicited surrejoinder See Construction Muzzy Ltd (above)
Payment – can a payment notice serve as a pay less notice? Vision Construct Ltd v Gypcraft Drylining Contractors Ltd [2025] EWHC 2707 (TCC) Adrian Williamson KC sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court (judgment 21 October 2025) In Part 8 proceedings, VCL sought declarations as to the proper construction of the contract payment mechanism used in the parties’ subcontract. Gypcraft had succeeded before an adjudicator as to the proper analysis of payment cycle 23 over January and February 2023. The adjudicator decided that VCL should pay Gypcraft £216,947.75 plus interest, finding that (a) Gypcraft had served a valid interim payment application 23; (b) VCL had failed to serve either a payment notice or a pay less notice in response as required; and (c) Gypcraft's interim payment application 23 was payable in the amount applied for, in accordance with section 110B(4) of the Act. VCL paid the sums awarded but submitted that the declarations sought, or any, if granted, would invalidate the adjudicator’s decision, so that the sums would fall to be repaid to them.
VCL’s case was based on three contentions:
1. That interim payment application 23 was not in accordance with the subcontract. The subcontract failed to adequately identify a relevant interim valuation date for payment cycle 23, meaning that clause 4 of the subcontract had to be rewritten to accord with Part 2 of the scheme. This means that Gypcraft had no right to submit an application for payment before the new statutorily imposed date. Although not pleaded, it was said to require no evidence. 2. There was a course of conduct between the parties under which a convention arose that Gypcraft would accept VCL's payment notice 23 out of time. From a table of dates, it was apparent that payment notices were late without complaint
11
www.ciarb.org
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting